Trying to Be Helped wrote:
hope this helps! wrote:A product of years of Fox News worshiping and a few months of getting suckered by Trump, who said in 1998 that if he ever ran for president he'd run as a republican because their voting base will believe anything.
Link?
says false that statement is , Snopes does.
justthefacts wrote:
Funny how many on here are pushing the 2nd amendment envelope as the main way to protect their "right" to guns. You might want to read the 2nd amendment carefully to see no such right exists. Or just read this article:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/second-amendment-guns-michael-waldmanFurthermore, it seems that few of you have problems when the government creates law on smoking in public places. Hmm, sounds to me this might be even more of an invasion of privacy.
Guns for killing people should be outlawed. Uzis, semi-automatic, automatic and whatever other "killer" gun manufactured have no place in our society. Manufactures should be sued and if that doesn't work, how about charing a hefty "death tax" for every "killer" gun manufactured and sold.
I have little problems with hunting guns and single shot handguns, but draw the line when it comes to these mass murder guns that are selling like hotcakes.
If states don't want to control the selling of guns, which seems pretty obvious the further south you go, then the fed needs to step in and solve this problem. And it is a problem. Just ask any parent from Newtown. And before you cry about Terrorists coming and killing us all, take note that most of the mass killings in recent years have been done by good old Americans.
So, if you are all for cutting out smoking because it is dangerous to your health, why don't you have the same thoughts about "killer" guns?
Hogwash! Only the left wants to take away rights of people because of "public safety", such as guns and smoking.
L L wrote:
guy mcgee wrote:Legitimate question here from someone who, somewhat like the OP, is pro-gun but anti-NRA. What benefit would registration provide?
Well, the example is automobiles.
Vehicle registration helps some with law and order.
It's harder for criminals to use stolen vehicles because of registration and it's a way to track all vehicles out there.
Ideally, each gun that gets sold would be registered so that gun is tracked to that owner.
It makes things more difficult for criminals.
Doesn't stop them, just like locking your doors don't but at least locking your doors helps.
I understand not wanting the government to have a list of all of your things.
But a gun is a very serious thing to have.
And I think if you can lose your right to drive, you can lose your right to have a gun. (I know that's not exactly the same because you can still own a car and not have a license)
But if I am in the minority in feeling this way, I am perfectly fine with democracy saying that gun registration is not necessary.
Although ... there was a recent gun control bill that was proposed that wasn't even allowed to go before congress for a vote. I am not sure if that is democracy.
Telling the government where the guns are when they come to confiscate will make it easier for them to strategically confiscate them.
Steve Martin wrote:
L L wrote:Well, the example is automobiles.
Vehicle registration helps some with law and order.
It's harder for criminals to use stolen vehicles because of registration and it's a way to track all vehicles out there.
Ideally, each gun that gets sold would be registered so that gun is tracked to that owner.
It makes things more difficult for criminals.
Doesn't stop them, just like locking your doors don't but at least locking your doors helps.
I understand not wanting the government to have a list of all of your things.
But a gun is a very serious thing to have.
And I think if you can lose your right to drive, you can lose your right to have a gun. (I know that's not exactly the same because you can still own a car and not have a license)
But if I am in the minority in feeling this way, I am perfectly fine with democracy saying that gun registration is not necessary.
Although ... there was a recent gun control bill that was proposed that wasn't even allowed to go before congress for a vote. I am not sure if that is democracy.
Telling the government where the guns are when they come to confiscate will make it easier for them to strategically confiscate them.
Exactly what happened in Australia...........registration, then confiscation. Besides..........its easy to scratch off the serial numbers of a stolen (or otherwise illegally obtained) firearm. The law abiding citizen again bears the brunt of the law, not the criminals.
L L wrote:
Ideally, each gun that gets sold would be registered so that gun is tracked to that owner.
It makes things more difficult for criminals.
Doesn't stop them, just like locking your doors don't but at least locking your doors helps.
Why is theft illegal? It only prevents law abiding citizens from stealing. Criminals don't care. They would steal whether it is illegal or not.
wtfunny wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:Government is always your worst enemy....
Well said .. how's life in Somalia?
Life is good. Please, on your next voyage near our shores, could you bring valuables? The economy here is down a bit.
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
Exactly what happened in Australia...........registration, then confiscation. Besides..........its easy to scratch off the serial numbers of a stolen (or otherwise illegally obtained) firearm. The law abiding citizen again bears the brunt of the law, not the criminals.
So if you refuse to take liberals at their word that their end game is not to confiscate everybody's weapons, why should liberals take conservatives at their word that things like voter ID laws aren't really about preventing minorities from voting, or that cutting funding for welfare programs or changing social security aren't steps down the road towards eliminating them entirely? How does a democracy function when everyone assumes that the people who disagree with are conniving liars.
The Way of Zen wrote:
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:Exactly what happened in Australia...........registration, then confiscation. Besides..........its easy to scratch off the serial numbers of a stolen (or otherwise illegally obtained) firearm. The law abiding citizen again bears the brunt of the law, not the criminals.
So if you refuse to take liberals at their word that their end game is not to confiscate everybody's weapons, why should liberals take conservatives at their word that things like voter ID laws aren't really about preventing minorities from voting, or that cutting funding for welfare programs or changing social security aren't steps down the road towards eliminating them entirely? How does a democracy function when everyone assumes that the people who disagree with are conniving liars.
Because the end game is the confiscation. Been stated by many in the gun banning crowd, most notably the current minority leader. I'm also old enough to have observed this over many years. I know of no republican leaders that have explicitly stated that the voter ID law is designed so that minorities can't vote. or that that they wish to eliminate social security or other "welfare" programs. I for one see the need to attach restrictions on all welfare programs, the lack thereof responsible for the current welfare state as we know it. I live in a highly liberal state (go figure, its my wife's fault), I can't vote unless I show my drivers license. Do the dems that control this state thus wish to prevent minorities from voting? No................some of them actually have common sense.
XY wrote:
We should all have atom bombs to protect ourselves from others with atom bombs. Remember it's the individual person, not the tool
... and the US government is armed with hydrogen bombs. You need your own H-bombs to protect yourself from the evil government.
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
Because the end game is the confiscation. Been stated by many in the gun banning crowd...
Are you really that stupid? Or is this some kind of act?
The end game of the gun banning crowd is confiscation? Really? In other late breaking news the National Association of Pig Farmers is pro-bacon AND bears do indeed shit in the woods.
R U Really That Dumb? wrote:
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:Because the end game is the confiscation. Been stated by many in the gun banning crowd...
Are you really that stupid? Or is this some kind of act?
The end game of the gun banning crowd is confiscation? Really? In other late breaking news the National Association of Pig Farmers is pro-bacon AND bears do indeed shit in the woods.
Bears in the zoo don't.
R U Really That Dumb? wrote:
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:Because the end game is the confiscation. Been stated by many in the gun banning crowd...
Are you really that stupid? Or is this some kind of act?
The end game of the gun banning crowd is confiscation? Really? In other late breaking news the National Association of Pig Farmers is pro-bacon AND bears do indeed shit in the woods.
You apparently are woefully uninformed. Consider yourself now informed. Believe it or not, I really don't care all that much.
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
The Way of Zen wrote:It's interesting that the people who disagree with any gun control measures on the grounds that we need to be prepared to defend ourselves from government tyranny tend to be the ones who support expanding the military and the surveillance state. It's like trying to protect yourself from a vicious dog on a weak chain by feeding it steroids.
Government tyranny as a reason to disagree with gun control measures isn't really a factor in my opinion, although its discussed frequently. Perhaps it was back in the day of muskets and bows and arrows, but likely not now. I don't see an armed insurrection as a problem that will solve anything. We have the second amendment, the right to vote and the courts. The US military needs to be strengthened and expanded, indeed. The need for additional surveillance of American citizens is obviously up for discussion, given the events we have seen recently in CA. Certainly monitoring of social media posts of people requesting entry to the US is warranted.
Google Battle of Athens. It will help you understand how it is still relevant, even though this was in the late 40s.
Steve Martin wrote:
Telling the government where the guns are when they come to confiscate will make it easier for them to strategically confiscate them.
Well isn't that why you have guns?
So you can shoot government people who try to take them from you?
The fear of registration of guns leading to confiscation of guns would be like the fear of registration of cars leading to confiscation of cars.
MIMITW wrote:
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:Government tyranny as a reason to disagree with gun control measures isn't really a factor in my opinion, although its discussed frequently. Perhaps it was back in the day of muskets and bows and arrows, but likely not now. I don't see an armed insurrection as a problem that will solve anything. We have the second amendment, the right to vote and the courts. The US military needs to be strengthened and expanded, indeed. The need for additional surveillance of American citizens is obviously up for discussion, given the events we have seen recently in CA. Certainly monitoring of social media posts of people requesting entry to the US is warranted.
Google Battle of Athens. It will help you understand how it is still relevant, even though this was in the late 40s.
Interesting account, wasn't aware that this even occurred. So much for US history in the public schools. While I do see the relevance, I don't think this could occur on as large a scale as requiring any kind of armed insurrection nationally. One never knows, however, in this day and age.